DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The added subject matter to the amended claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 depends from claim 26, as best understood claim 26 should depend from claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Germann (US 2,594,910).
Regarding claim 15, Germann discloses a roller blind system comprising:
a shade (canopy) comprising a flexible sheet (windable tarpaulin or canvas material) and one or more bow springs (6, the ribs are flexible and resilient and bow between a curved and flat configuration therefore understood to be springs; col 3, lines 53-56);
a roller drum (9); and
a rail assembly (1 and 1’) configured to receive opposing edges of the shade,
the rail assembly comprising:
a rail that a first channel section (Fig 3) and a second channel section (Fig 4) joined with the first channel section, the second channel section elevated (Figs 3 and 4) relative to the first channel section (col 3, lines 56-60; second channel section is tilted and elevated higher via the angled bracket shown in Fig 4);
wherein the shade is configured to transition between:
a coiled configuration about the roller drum with each of the bow springs in a straight configuration and passing through the first channel section; and
a deployed configuration within the rail assembly with each of the bow springs in a curved configuration and passing through the second channel section (Fig 1; col 3, lines 48-67).
Regarding claim 16, Germann discloses in the coiled configuration, the opposing edges of the shade are a first distance apart from each other (first section closest to roller drum); and in the deployed configuration, the opposing edges of the shade are a second distance, less than the first distance, apart from each other (second section).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann, as applied in claim 15 above, in further view of Ewing et al. (US 6,161,893), hereinafter referred to as Ewing.
Regarding claim 17, Germann discloses further comprising a drive unit (13) configured to move drive straps (11) coupled to the shade and extending through corresponding channels of the rail assembly. Germann discloses straps instead of cables. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a drive unit of a roller blind system to utilize a drive cable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the drive strap assembly with the drive unit of Ewing having a drive cable since it is provides the equivalent function of driving a roller and would allow for the opening and closing of the shade.
Regarding claim 18, Germann teaches that movement of the drive cables is configured to rotate the roller drum. Germann fails to teach the drive cables are further coupled to gears of the roller drum. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a roller drum to be driven by drive cables coupled to a gear (254). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Germann such that the drive cables is substituted with the drive cables of Ewing and the roller drum is further provided with a gear in the manner taught by Ewing since it provides an equivalent means of driving a roller blind between open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 19, Germann discloses the drive cables (11) are coupled to opposing sides of an endmost one of the bow springs (6) of the shade. Germann discloses straps instead of cables. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a drive unit of a roller blind system to utilize a drive cable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the drive strap assembly with the drive unit of Ewing having a drive cable since it is provides the equivalent function of driving a roller and would allow for the opening and closing of the shade.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann and Ewing, as applied in claim 17 above, in further view of Bergmiller et al. (US 2008/0211266), hereinafter referred to as Bergmiller.
Regarding claim 20, Germann as modified with Ewing above teaches the drive cables are wound about rollers and fails to teach wherein each of the drive cables forms a closed loop. However, Bergmiller teaches a roller shade (Fig 1) having a drive unit with drive cables that each form a closed loop. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the drive unit of Germann so that the drive cables are formed as closed loops in the manner taught by Bergmiller since such arrangement provides the same means of driving a roller shade, as taught by Bergmiller. Modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann in further view of Van Boxtel (US 10,017,034).
Regarding claim 21, Germann discloses a roller blind system, comprising:
a shade (Fig 2) comprising:
a flexible sheet;
one or more bow springs (6) distributed along a length of the flexible sheet, each of the bow springs extending transversely to the length of the flexible sheet (Fig 2); and
a roller drum (9) configured to receive the shade (Fig 1); and
a rail assembly (1, 1’) comprising a pair of rails (1, 1’) each configured to receive a corresponding one of opposing edges of a shade (Figs 3 and 4), each of the rails defining a channel having a first channel section (section shown in Fig 3) and a second channel section (section shown in Fig 4), wherein the second channel section is elevated relative to the first channel section (the second channel section is elevated via the angled bracket shown in Fig 4).
Germann lacks multiple pads, each of the pads being positioned on a side of a corresponding one of the bow springs that is opposite the flexible sheet. However, Van Boxtel teaches that it is known to provide multiple pads (11”) on a side of the bow spring (5’) opposite the flexible sheet (1). Van Boxtel teaches that the multiple pads provide a pocket to conceal bows for stiffening the blind. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Germann and provide the bow springs with multiple pads in order to conceal the bows.
Regarding claim 23, Germann discloses wherein the shade is configured to transition between: a coiled configuration about the roller drum (9) with each of the bow springs in a straight configuration; and a deployed configuration within the rail assembly with each of the bow springs in a curved configuration.
Regarding claim 24, Germann as modified with Van Boxtel above discloses wherein, in the deployed configuration, the multiple pads define a maximum height of the shade (see Fig 6 of Van Boxtel).
Regarding claim 25, Germann discloses wherein: in the coiled configuration, the opposing edges of the shade, defining a width of the shade, are a first distance apart from each other; and in the deployed configuration, the opposing edges of the shade are a second distance, less than the first distance, apart from each other (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 28, Germann discloses wherein the flexible sheet comprises a cloth material (tarpaulin is a heavy duty cloth).
Regarding claim 29, Germann as modified with Van Boxtel above teaches each of the multiple pads comprises a fabric material (cloth).
Claims 22, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann and Van Boxtel, as applied in claims 21 and 25 above, in further view of Ewing.
Regarding claim 22, Germann discloses further comprising guide straps (11) each extending along one of opposing ends of the flexible sheet and adjacent to a corresponding end of each of the bow springs. Germann discloses straps instead of cables. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a drive unit of a roller blind system to utilize a drive cable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the drive strap assembly with the drive unit of Ewing having a drive cable since it is provides the equivalent function of driving a roller and would allow for the opening and closing of the shade.
Regarding claim 26, Germann discloses comprising guide cables (11) each coupled to a corresponding one of the opposing edges of the shade. Germann discloses straps instead of cables. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a drive unit of a roller blind system to utilize a drive cable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the drive strap assembly with the drive unit of Ewing having a drive cable since it is provides the equivalent function of driving a roller and would allow for the opening and closing of the shade.
Regarding claim 27, Germann discloses comprising drive straps coupled to opposing sides of an endmost one of the bow springs (6), portions of the drive straps extending in parallel with portions of the guide straps (left strap parallel to right strap). Germann discloses straps instead of cables. However, Ewing teaches that it is known for a drive unit of a roller blind system to utilize a drive cable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the drive strap assembly with the drive unit of Ewing having a drive cable since it is provides the equivalent function of driving a roller and would allow for the opening and closing of the shade.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634